The new General Environmental Permitting Law: what changes, and what may still change
Law No. 15.190/2025 created national rules, new modalities, and deadlines, but its practical application still depends on local classification and on the outcome of the constitutional review.
The General Environmental Permitting Law (Lei Geral do Licenciamento Ambiental, Law No. 15.190/2025) took effect on February 4, 2026 and established general rules for processes conducted by the agencies of Sisnama (Brazil’s National Environmental System). The text organizes seven types of license, allows ordinary, simplified, corrective, and special procedures, sets analysis deadlines, and governs the transition of ongoing processes.
A national law can standardize concepts and deadlines. It does not make territories, impacts, or the institutional capacity of the agencies that decide on each project the same.
The jurisdictional framework of Complementary Law No. 140/2011 remains in place, and the federative entities (the Union, states, Federal District, and municipalities) continue to be responsible for typologies, classifications, and acts of implementation. The safest answer for companies is not to presume an exemption, but to identify the phase of the process, the competent authority, and the local classification, keeping studies traceable and proportionate to the project's impacts.
The law is already in force, but the regime is still taking shape
Law No. 15,190 was enacted on August 8, 2025, with 63 presidential vetoes. On November 27, Congress overrode 52 of them and reinstated provisions on exemptions, the LAC (licenciamento por adesao e compromisso, self-declaratory licensing by commitment), conditions of approval, and the authorities involved, which were promulgated in December, when Law No. 15,300/2025 also reformulated the LAE (licenca ambiental especial, special environmental license) and introduced new restrictions on the LAC.
Once the 180-day vacatio legis (waiting period before entry into force) had elapsed, the General Law took effect on February 4, 2026. This history explains why analyses published at the time of enactment may be outdated: the reference must always be the consolidated text.
- August 8, 2025: enactment of Law No. 15,190/2025, with 63 presidential vetoes.
- November 27, 2025: Congress overrides 52 vetoes and reinstates provisions on exemptions, the LAC, conditions of approval, and the authorities involved.
- December 2025: promulgation of the reinstated provisions; Law No. 15,300/2025 amends the LAE and broadens restrictions on the LAC.
- February 4, 2026: with the 180-day vacatio legis concluded, the General Law enters into force.
- August 12, 2026: date scheduled by the STF (Brazil's Supreme Court) for the joint trial of ADIs 7.913, 7.916, 7.919 and ADC 102.
A national framework is not a single set of regulations
The General Law establishes rules applicable to the Union, states, Federal District, and municipalities within the Sisnama (Sistema Nacional do Meio Ambiente, National Environmental System), while preserving the responsibilities set out in Complementary Law No. 140/2011. The federative entities remain in charge of classifying activities according to location, nature, size, and pollution potential. In practice, a company must work with two layers: the national one, with concepts and deadlines, and the territorial one, with lists of activities and acts specific to the competent agency. This adaptation did not occur in an identical or simultaneous manner across the states.
This combination requires a compatibility reading between the federal law and the rules already used by the licensing agency; it is not safe to conclude that a local procedure has disappeared merely because the law created a national modality with a similar name.
Seven licenses and more than one review pathway
The law preserved the sequence of Preliminary License (LP), Installation License (LI), and Operation License (LO), and organized the Single Environmental License (LAU), the Licensing by Adhesion and Commitment (LAC), the Corrective Operation License (LOC), and the Special Environmental License (LAE), allowing for three-phase, two-phase, single-phase, adhesion-and-commitment, correction of activities already in operation, and a special procedure for strategic projects.
The modality should not be chosen solely out of an interest in reducing timelines. Article 18 ties the classification to location, nature, size, and pollution potential, while the level of study must be compatible with the expected impact; where there is potential for significant degradation, the requirement for an EIA/Rima (environmental impact assessment and its report) remains in force.
The existence of a simplified modality does not remove the studies, controls, or authorizations required for the specific case; the diagram summarizes the procedural pathways without replacing the classification carried out by the competent authority.
LAC: simplification does not mean the absence of responsibility
The LAC concentrates a significant part of the debate. As a rule, it may be applied to small or medium-sized activities with low or medium pollution potential, with typologies defined in a specific act of the competent entity. Law No. 15,300/2025 added restrictions: the LAC does not apply to projects in contaminated areas, in certain conservation units, on safeguarded archaeological or cultural assets, on indigenous lands and quilombola territories, in the territorial sea, or in areas susceptible to landslides and flash flooding.
The developer's declaration and the Project Characterization Report do not eliminate oversight: the information may be reviewed on a sampling basis, the authority must carry out annual inspections also on a sampling basis, and professionals and developers remain responsible for the content presented. Simplification, therefore, shifts part of the oversight toward the quality of the classification, the traceability of the declarations, and subsequent enforcement.
Clearer deadlines do not produce a tacit license
The General Law sets maximum review periods: ten months for an LP with an EIA; six months for an LP based on other studies; three months for the LI, LO, LOC, and LAU; four months for two-phase procedures without an EIA; and twelve months for the LAE. It also provides that requests for additional information be made all at once, except in the case of new facts, and grants the developer up to four months to comply, extendable upon accepted justification.
The expiration of the agency's deadline does not amount to automatic issuance of the license and does not authorize installation or operation. The law allows, if requested, the invocation of the supplementary jurisdiction provided for in Complementary Law No. 140/2011. For renewal, a request submitted at least 120 days in advance automatically extends validity until the final decision.
These rules improve formal predictability, but they do not eliminate scheduling risk: studies that are incomplete relative to the Terms of Reference may not be accepted within the first fifteen days, requiring resubmission and a restart of the procedure. Managing the timeline remains dependent on the technical and documentary consistency of the filing.
In ongoing processes, the current stage is the dividing line
Processes initiated after February 4, 2026 follow the new regime. For those already underway, previously established obligations and schedules must be observed until the current stage is completed; the subsequent stages then follow the new law. This requires precisely identifying where the process stands: initial review, additional information, appeal, license in force, renewal, or transition to a new phase. A comparative table of existing obligations, current phase, next acts, and supervening rules helps anticipate conflicts and avoids requests that are incompatible with the procedural stage.
Conditions of approval and studies: the technical nexus has become even more important
The law provides that impact management follow the order of prevention, mitigation, and, when the first two are not sufficient, compensation. The conditions of approval must be proportionate to the magnitude of the identified impacts and present technical grounds that demonstrate the causal nexus. A procedure was also created allowing the developer to request their review, on reasoned grounds, within thirty days after the license is issued.
This design may improve the quality of the conditions of approval, provided that the study adequately distinguishes direct, indirect, cumulative, and synergistic impacts. In urban or infrastructure projects, it is not always straightforward to separate the effect of the project itself from pre-existing territorial deficiencies; the more limited the ability to impose obligations without a nexus, the greater the need for a transparent diagnosis, with technically demonstrated premises, limits, and responsibilities.
For urban projects, environmental and urban-planning licensing remain connected
In licensing processes under municipal or district jurisdiction, the law provides for an integrated urban-planning and environmental license for the subdivision of urban land and for certain cases of regularization or urbanization of informal settlements. At the same time, environmental licensing is independent of the issuance of the municipal certificate of land use, subdivision, and occupation and of acts by agencies that are not part of the Sisnama (National Environmental System). Procedural independence does not mean substantive exemption: the text itself preserves the obligation to comply with the legislation applicable to parallel authorizations and grants, and the developer must coordinate tracks that may proceed separately, such as urban-planning compatibility, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, cultural heritage, and infrastructure.
The territorial reading also affects the modality. An area declared contaminated or formally recognized as susceptible to flash flooding, for example, may rule out the LAC, even if the activity has a compatible size and pollution potential. The assessment of the property becomes part of the procedural classification itself.
The authorities involved and the debate that reached the STF
The law sets deadlines for the statements of Funai (the national indigenous affairs agency), Iphan (the national historic and artistic heritage institute), ICMBio (the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation), and other authorities involved, provides that their absence must not halt the process, and states that their statements do not bind the decision of the licensing authority, tying part of this participation to territorial delineations such as ratified indigenous lands, titled quilombola areas, and conservation units.
These provisions are among the most sensitive topics. Federal institutions such as the MMA (Ministry of the Environment), Funai, and Iphan expressed concern about the reduction of preventive oversight; in a different vein, the Brazilian Chamber of the Construction Industry argues before the STF that the new framework strengthens legal certainty and should be declared constitutional. These are opposing institutional positions that, in a technical article, should not be turned into a foregone conclusion.
Three direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs 7.913, 7.916 and 7.919) and ADC 102 were assigned to Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The STF announced a joint trial for August 12, 2026. As of the closing of this article, the law remained in force and there had been no ruling on the merits; the outcome may uphold, restrict, reinterpret, or set aside relevant provisions.
What companies should organize now
The transition calls for method. The actions below help turn the regulatory change into objective management of the process:
- Define the applicable authority and classification. Confirm jurisdiction, typology, location, size, pollution potential, and the local act governing the intended modality.
- Map the phase of each process. Record valid obligations and schedules, the completion milestone of the current stage, and the rules provided for the following phase.
- Separate the license from other authorizations. Organize a matrix of urban-planning, water, forestry, wildlife, heritage, and infrastructure acts, with responsible parties and dependencies.
- Strengthen technical traceability. Document databases, surveys, classification criteria, premises, and limitations. In the LAC, the quality of the declaration is a central part of the oversight.
- Review conditions of approval based on impact and nexus. Distinguish prevention, mitigation, and compensation and demonstrate the relationship between the proposed measure and the impact attributed to the project.
- Monitor regulation and constitutional review. Track acts of the competent entity and STF decisions before assuming that an exemption, deadline, or modality will apply in a stable manner.
The counterpoint: formal simplification does not eliminate material risk
The new law seeks to reduce regulatory fragmentation, define deadlines, and create proportionate procedures, objectives that can improve predictability, especially when the agency has clear criteria and enforcement capacity. But the existence of a simplified pathway does not make a sensitive territory, an incomplete database, or a cumulative impact simple.
The same applies to contracting and financing. Article 58 governs the requirement to present the environmental license and limits the oversight duty of contracting parties and financial institutions under the conditions provided. Because this provision was reinstated after a veto override and is part of the constitutional debate, reducing due diligence to obtaining a copy of the license may be a fragile strategy: documentary compliance does not replace an analysis of validity, scope, conditions of approval, liabilities, and the compatibility of the actual operation with the act that was issued.
Conclusion
The General Law on Environmental Licensing (licenciamento ambiental, environmental permitting) represents a significant change because it brought into a federal law concepts, modalities, and deadlines that were previously distributed mainly across resolutions and rules of the various entities. Its effect, however, is not immediate uniformity: application will continue to run through federative jurisdiction, local classification, the agency's institutional capacity, and the environmental characteristics of the territory. For companies, the gain in predictability will depend less on the isolated reading of a single article and more on the integration of planning, engineering, environmental studies, document management, and regulatory monitoring. Until the STF concludes its trial and the entities stabilize their procedures, the best strategy is to work with traceable diagnoses, proportionate decisions, and a clear record of the premises adopted.
Technical and classification note
This article is technical and informative in nature and does not constitute a legal opinion. The text takes into account the legislation and public information available on July 20, 2026. Law No. 15,190/2025 is in force, but its provisions are the subject of ADIs 7.913, 7.916 and 7.919 and ADC 102, scheduled by the STF for August 12, 2026. Should this article be read after that date, the classification must be updated. The modality, the studies, and the acts required depend on the competent authority, the applicable regulation, and the specific characteristics of the project and the territory.
Sources consulted: Brazilian Law No. 15.190/2025 and Brazilian Law No. 15.300/2025 (consolidated text, Camara dos Deputados and Planalto); history of the veto proceedings in the National Congress; STF (ADIs 7.913, 7.916 and 7.919, ADC 102, and the Plenary docket) (link pending validation); institutional notes from MMA, ICMBio and Iphan (link pending validation); IBAMA (Federal Environmental Licensing Service) (link pending validation). The text of this article is an original synthesis by LZ Ambiental.
LZ Ambiental supports companies and developers in defining licensing strategies, in the technical classification of projects, and in coordinating environmental and urban studies. In a transitional regime, safer decisions begin with an integrated reading of the territory, the procedural phase, and the rules actually applicable to the competent agency.
